In March 2005, the EEOC district office of San Francisco, California brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Lexus of Serramonte, a Lexus automotive dealership; Sonic Automotive, Inc., an internet automotive dealership; and First America ...
read more >

In March 2005, the EEOC district office of San Francisco, California brought this suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Lexus of Serramonte, a Lexus automotive dealership; Sonic Automotive, Inc., an internet automotive dealership; and First America Automotive. The complaint alleged that the defendants maintained sexually hostile work environments in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After a grant of partial summary judgment for the EEOC, the parties attended a settlement conference in September 2006. The next day a consent decree was issued and the case was dismissed.

The consent decree stated that the defendant must (1) pay two identified employee, class members equal shares of unknown amounts out of a total $375,000 award; (2) pay all other unidentified employee, class members portions of the remaining $375,000 award, the computation of which is quite elaborate and explained fully in the consent decree; (3) halt all sexual harassing behavior; (4) prevent any harassment or discrimination based on sex; (5) refrain from retaliating against employees who complain about or resist any sex based discrimination; (6) post notices of its anti-sex discrimination policies; (7) choose and Equal Employment Opportunity Consultant who will monitor the defendant's compliance with Title VII, review the defendants' anti-discrimination policies, and review the defendant's response to complaints; (8) provide neutral reference letters to all class members; (9) train all existing and new employees on the affects of sex discrimination; (10) and retain all records of training and employment for EEOC inspection. The decree was to last for two years. The docket sheet shows that no further enforcement took place; the case was presumably closed in 2008.